Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#101

Post by throwawaysea »

scarface74 wrote: post #89
throwawaysea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think pandemic response or wildfire are national in scope? Both can be handled at the state level. For example California, Oregon, and a Washington could perform necessary controlled burning ( https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-... ) or harvest trees on a timely basis ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-m... ), or at least stay in target with even their exi…

Could the state be allowed to close its borders to other states in the case of Covid?

They already have this power to an extent. Hawaii for example requires visitors to self quarantine for two weeks upon arrival and arrests violators.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#102

Post by throwawaysea »

falcolas wrote: post #96
username90 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe manage to handle those things just fine and local politics is very decoupled from EU politics. Why wouldn't states be allowed to close borders under emergencies?

Because a state is not a country. It doesn't have a military, border patrol, national guard, etc. That is to say, it doesn't have the manpower. And it could - practically speaking - never raise the money to do so (states have enough trouble paying their teachers, sanitation workers, paving roads, etc).

They have trouble paying for everything that’s on their wish list but that’s true of individuals and the federal government as well. A state COULD have those things, especially if their taxpayers gave up less in federal taxes since the federal government would have fewer responsibilities. Not sure how this changes things.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#103

Post by falcolas »

throwawaysea wrote: post #102
falcolas wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a state is not a country. It doesn't have a military, border patrol, national guard, etc. That is to say, it doesn't have the manpower. And it could - practically speaking - never raise the money to do so (states have enough trouble paying their teachers, sanitation workers, paving roads, etc).

They have trouble paying for everything that’s on their wish list but that’s true of individuals and the federal government as well. A state COULD have those things, especially if their taxpayers gave up less in federal taxes since the federal government would have fewer responsibilities. Not sure how this changes things.

But if a state has sufficient personnel to handle an emergency (say a tornado strike on a town), they have too much personnel the rest of the time. Whereas, with a governmental entity, they can go from emergency to emergency, keeping wasted resources to a minimum.

The governmental agency can also shift resources from one state to another without having to wait for the resolution of aid politics between the individual states (not to mention the states the aid would be transported through).

Of course, there are significant inefficiencies that exist in those entities in reality, but what would realistically prevent those same inefficiencies from existing in a state-run system as well?

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#104

Post by t0mbstone »

kthejoker2 wrote: post #92
vmception wrote: post #3

There are deeper cases for revisiting the Electoral College than "I don't like it when the popular vote doesn't favor me". One primary issue is that the Electors for each state are not elected. A patch for this and guidance for their behaviors is something that has to be addressed in each state on their own, with a few states here or there seeming to force Electors to submit certain information, such as the popular v…

Supreme Court ruled this year that that's not so, you can't be a faithless elector. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/885168480/supreme-court-rules...

If you can't legally be a faithless elector, then there is no point to having an electoral college. Just let the popular vote decide, since that's how the electoral college is obligated to vote anyways.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#105

Post by r0s »

HideousKojima wrote: post #35
r0s wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should states have more power?

Depends on what you mean by "should." As far as legal, historical, and constitutional reasons go, the original idea of the US was sovereign states under a limited federal government. The federal government inherently had no power except that explicitly granted to it by the constitution. Several part of the constitution (most notably the commerce clause) have been stretched far beyond their original meaning and purpos…

> the original idea of the US was sovereign states under a limited federal government

That's history, but not reasoning. The constitution adapts to the people's needs, I don't believe we've gone down the "wrong" path, but either way the constitution is neutral towards the debate.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#106

Post by AnimalMuppet »

sky_rw wrote: post #32
baron816 wrote: post #14

I’ve long been in favor of rewriting the constitution. Everyone hates how the government operates—courts are politicized and at risk of being captured, the legislature is at a constant impasse, everything is hyper partisan, the executive is either way too powerful, or not powerful enough. The only things people can point to that they like about the constitution are the first amendment, and sometimes the second and fo…

And given all of these screwed up things, you would put it to these people to write a better framework? You say "The only things people can point to that they like about the constitution are..." and then proceed to point out things that are not even in the constitution. Here is something to like about the constitution: a system of government that has seen the peaceful transition of power every 4 years for 244 consecu…

Um, amendments are in fact in the constitution. That's what an amendment is - a change from the original text.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#107

Post by sky_rw »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #106
sky_rw wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And given all of these screwed up things, you would put it to these people to write a better framework? You say "The only things people can point to that they like about the constitution are..." and then proceed to point out things that are not even in the constitution. Here is something to like about the constitution: a system of government that has seen the peaceful transition of power every 4 years for 244 consecu…

Um, amendments are in fact in the constitution. That's what an amendment is - a change from the original text.

Referring to the bill of rights, which is a separate document from the US constitution. Functionally it serves a different purpose, whereas the constitution details how the government is structured and what it can do, the bill of rights enumerates what it cannot do. The bill of rights (1-10) does not change anything in the constitution.

I'm sure you could get pedantic on this matter, but the subject of OP was related to structure and function of the US government. This is the purview of the constitution and not the first 10 amendments.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#108

Post by dariusj18 »

HideousKojima wrote: post #4

The fight against the electoral college is one of those things that misses the forest for the trees. The real problem is that too much power has been vested in the federal government (and in the executive branch specifically), and too much power has been taken from the states. People would care a lot less about how the president gets elected if he didn't have so much control over the entire country.

I believe it is a consequence of the 17th amendment, direct election of U.S. Senators took the people's eye off their own local and state governments.

At the time it may have seemed like a good idea to battle corruption, however I don't think they chose the correct solution.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#109

Post by AnimalMuppet »

sky_rw wrote: post #107
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, amendments are in fact in the constitution. That's what an amendment is - a change from the original text.

Referring to the bill of rights, which is a separate document from the US constitution. Functionally it serves a different purpose, whereas the constitution details how the government is structured and what it can do, the bill of rights enumerates what it cannot do. The bill of rights (1-10) does not change anything in the constitution. I'm sure you could get pedantic on this matter, but the subject of OP was related…

I don't know where you got the idea that the bill of rights is a separate document from the US constitution. Amendments alter the thing amended. They aren't somehow separate, the become incorporated into the thing they amend.

Functionally, they may serve a different purpose. So does the preamble, but it's still a part of the constitution. As is the bill of rights.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#110

Post by RhysU »

platz wrote: post #7

The electoral college itself isn't really the issue. It's the fact that states use winner-take-all apportionment of electors. Unlike the electoral college, winner-take-all apportionment isn't mandated in the constitution. You could have the electoral college and also distribute electors according to the share of popular vote each party received in that state.

In a proportional system there is no reason for a presidential candidate to do anything but rack up numbers in the largest states where they've support. Everywhere else would be ignored.
Post reply on HN